Legal this time? Startup offers local TV on the ‘Net, with a twist

It's once more into the breach for entrepreneurs who want to deliver live over …

Several years ago, Chet Kanojia was enjoying a brisk career providing data collection and ad exchange services to broadcasters and cable companies. He'd sold his business to Microsoft, and was working on integrating his operation into the huge firm.

Then something occurred to him. Why should consumers have to rely on unreliable home antenna systems or expensive cable services for access to local broadcast television, when they could get it over the Internet?

"I have sort of a real passion for the video sector in general and in particular solving some key consumer access problems," Kanojia explained to us in an interview. "The light bulb went on in my head that if you could solve the consumer's access to broadcast television in a smart way that they did not have to get it exclusively from the cable or satellite company, you really had a great starting point for any over the top service, because then a consumer could combine that with Netflix and Hulu."

And once someone had both over-the-air network channels plus access to Hulu and Netflix--well, why bother with cable TV?

The teeny-tiny solution

If you've followed the history of this particular incandescent idea, you know that it has been tried before, and that it is fraught with legal risk. But before we get into that, it should be noted that Kanojia's Long Island, New York based startup, Bamboom, offers a novel approach to the problem.

Basically, the Bamboom model is to take the tuner, DVR, and all related paraphernalia out of your house and transfer it over to a central HQ in your area—at present New York City is the testing ground. There you are assigned your own "teeny-tiny HD antenna," in the company's words.

Kanojia described one of these antennas to us. "Basically what we did is we miniaturized television antennas down to almost the size of a dime," he explained. "Except the consumer doesn't put them in their house. We put them in giant arrays in a central location in the market, like in New York, for example, and each individual consumer gets their own antenna."

The result is that you can receive, record, and keep your content up in Bamboom's mini-HD antenna cloud and watch it when you want. Your connection and cloud data locker is "exclusively yours; no one else can use it," the company notes. Plus, Bamboom has partnered with Netflix to offer the Netflix library to subscribers, has integrated Facebook and Twitter into the service, and is cranking out apps to make it available on smartphones and tablets.

Now all the startup has to do is make sure this is actually legal.

Internet = cable?

As Ars readers know, Bamboom isn't the first IP venture to try to offer live broadcast TV over the Internet. Bamboom knows this too. The company's legal statement acknowledges the history of two predecessor companies, FilmOn and ivi, both of which took live TV signals and offered the content over an Internet connection.

Broadcasters sued these services on the grounds that they're not "cable" systems as defined by Section 111 of the Copyright Act. This makes them ineligible to apply for "compulsory licenses" to make "secondary transmissions" of copyrighted content streamed via over-the-air television.

FilmOn was hit with a temporary restraining order late last year. ivi insisted that its case was different. The former company "doesn't fit the copyright definition of a cable system," an ivi representative told Ars, "distributes content outside the US in an unprotected format, and offers its service free of charge, which is a clear violation of all applicable copyright law."

But in late February the judicial hammer came down on ivi even harder. "We cannot conclude that Congress intended to sanction the use of a compulsory license by a company so vastly different from those to which the license originally applied," the United States Southern District Court of New York ruled on February 22.

ivi's architecture bears no resemblance to the cable systems of the 1970s. Its service retransmits broadcast signals nationwide, rather than to specific local areas. Finally, unlike cable systems of the 1970s, ivi refuses to comply with the rules and regulations of the FCC.

As for the US Copyright Office, the Southern District's interpretation of its recent statements on the Internet versus cable question was unambiguous. The record demonstrates "how thoroughly the Copyright Office has engaged with these issues," the court declared.

First, a service providing Internet retransmissions cannot qualify as a cable system. Second, the compulsory license for cable systems is intended for localized retransmission services, and cannot be utilized by a service which retransmits broadcast signals nationwide. Third, the rules and regulations of the FCC, even if found not to be binding on a service such as ivi, are integral to the statutory licensing scheme established in 1976.

So just what is Bamboom thinking?

A private performance

ivi says it will appeal the ruling. But faced with this kind of legal precedent, Bamboom's attorneys understandably seek justification in another court case: Cablevision vs. Cartoon Network. About five years ago, the Cablevision cable company came up with the kernel of the Bamboom idea. Let consumers do their time-shifting not with a DVR sitting in their living rooms, but through Cablevision's remote storage facilities (essentially, a mass DVR sitting in the local cable company office).

The studios and networks quickly sued, arguing that Cablevision's system directly infringed on their exclusive right to reproduce and publicly "perform" copies of their copyrighted content. They found a friend in that same Southern District Court of New York, which agreed with their logic.

But Cablevision appealed the case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, whose judges saw the matter differently. They found convincing Cablevision's contention that this was just like a home DVR... with a really long-range remote control. (In the Cablevision system, customers still had to choose material for recording and had their own unique storage space.)

The Second Circuit rejected the notion that this uniquely stored data represented a "public performance" for which Cablevision needed another license.

"Because each RS-DVR [remote storage DVR] playback transmission is made to a single subscriber using a single unique copy produced by that subscriber," the court observed, "we conclude that such transmissions are not performances 'to the public,' and therefore do not infringe any exclusive right of public performance."

You control the transmission

It is in the Cablevision decision that Bamboom seeks safe legal harbor. "Here, too [meaning Bamboom], the consumer controls all communications and recording and so makes a private performance," Bamboom notes, which is why it's so important to Bamboom that every user have an actual antenna of their own that they control.

Unlike public performances that would require some form of copyright license, the private performances initiated by consumers using the Bamboom technology do not infringe copyright and need no licenses. This enables consumers to access their local broadcast programming on their IP-enabled devices, in real time, without expensive subscription fees.

Bamboom's system conforms to the Cablevision ruling's "private" standard to the last detail, the company insists.

The consumer controls and causes the transmission.

The consumer chooses what to watch and when and where to watch it.

The consumer 'turns on' his or her individual antenna and receives his or her own individual signal.

The signals are intended for personal display on consumer laptops, tablets, phones, and IP-based devices.

Kanojia told us that Bamboom is in "technical beta" for New Yorkers right now. "We'll keep adding capacity and keep inviting people to join throughout the summer."

Matthew Lasar
Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Emailmatthew.lasar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@matthewlasar

"We cannot conclude that Congress intended to sanction the use of a compulsory license by a company so vastly different from those to which the license originally applied,"

This is funny. This would seem to apply to many areas of copyright, but not necessarily something that would favor the rights holder. An example being treating file sharers the same as a publisher who distributed 500,000 copies of a book.

Like many of these legal dust-ups, this will come down not to who is right or wrong but who has more and better lawyers and enough money to be in the political donor class. Nice try, Bamboom, good luck, but my money's on the other guys.

The viewer is still stuck watching the commercials as far as I can tell. So, what's the beef? Content is paid by advertisers who count number of eyes watching (or supposedly watching). If its a live stream, then you have a captive audience.

I tell you... these old rules need to change and change quickly or the content providers will be in the same boat as the recording industry... a pitiful remnant of a bygone era suing their customers to hang on to an outdated and unwanted business model.

Copyright law= making life more complicated and obtuse for no apparent reason whatsoever!

Indeed, the amount of hardware and mental wrangling going on here just to get around doing "broadcast" is impressive and depressing.

I keep visualizing the copyright lawyers are the kid that tries to put a square peg into a round hole. And when it do not fit they grab the passing cat and try using it as a hammer to force the peg to fit...

And this fits a depressing pattern. I was told that a "cloud" DVR service provider had to keep a separate copy on disk for each customer, no matter if the majority of them had the service set to record the exact same program at the exact same time or not. This meant that they where operating one impressive SAN like setup just to provide capacity for their customers. It is likely that if they could keep one copy for each program and a list of time codes for recordings, they could have scaled it back by several magnitudes. But then that would be considered a broadcast by the lawyers that be, and so require some very expensive licenses.

Hell, typing that out reminds me of a supposed exchange between Microsoft and Disney. Microsoft approached them trying to sell the use of their codec. Towards the end of the presentations of the codecs capabilities the MS representative turned to the Disney people and asked how much they would consider paying for the use of said codec. The Disney people responded by asking the Microsoft people how much Microsoft was willing to pay for the right to use Disney content.

To me that is one hell of and example of the level of hubris present in that "industry".

There are even more stupid things. Here in Taiwan, one of the largest IPTV provider (named MOD, provided by the largest telecom CHT) broadcast free-on-air TV on their IPTV, but some of the programs (on the free-to-air TV) are blocked because they don't have license. This is, of course, stupid, but the truth is that those TV stations want to sell the license to those popular programs to those IPTV provider later (as a VOD service, for example). However, cable TV system providers don't get blocked because they are basically protected by law, not unlike the situation in the US.

So you get basically two things which are almost the same (IPTV and cable), the only difference being the medium of transmission, while they get completely different treatment, because the law only protects "cable," not internet.

This shows how stupid the laws and preveous rualings have been. A direct feed or higher quality antena is such a better solution than millions of redundant crappy antennas for something hardly different than a tv dvr combo

its really unfortunate that the cable company sharks will go after forward thinking startups like this. The home entertainment world is heading in this direction no matter what, and the all the cable companies want to do is stop it rather than adapt and move forward with the rest of the world.

The beef is that you can see the FTA (free to air) stuff over IP, with no need to buy an antenna or any other equipment. This is very interesting to me, as right now I pay $17/mo to Comcast basically for FTA stuff, as I get very poor reception due to the trees around my house (and wife vetoing a really big antenna tower next to the house). Throw in Netflix and a couple of free IPTV channels for news (France24, RT, CBC, etc.) and you have a reasonable alternative to cable at (hopefully) a lower cost.

I hope they win - it is a service long overdue in US. ATT and UVerse is TV over IP, nationwide, with localized service - not at all different from what these guys are doing. The TV box for UVerse is attached to a network port on their Gateway router/Modem, if anybody cares to check - no real difference from what these guys are doing, except that it is bundled with their own internet service offerings. If FCC would force the rest of broadband providers (Comcast, etc.) to allow ATT UVerse TV boxes to connect to ATT's backend via ANY broadband IP service, it may get really interesting

The funny thing is, I'm old enough to remember CATV (Community Antenna TV) Back in the day, they built a large antenna tower at our seaside vacation community, and ran cables from it to the individual homes. You bought a "share" of the antenna. Since they didn't pick up anything that wasn't freely available from broadcast, and the subscribers "owned" the antenna, no one paid for licenses on anything.

Theoretically, this service should be the same - only difference is in what kind of wire the signal comes out of. In practice, however...

Like many of these legal dust-ups, this will come down not to who is right or wrong but who has more and better lawyers and enough money to be in the political donor class. Nice try, Bamboom, good luck, but my money's on the other guys.

True that. The scales that Lady Justice holds are for the piles of cash each side puts on.

This is certainly an interesting idea, but it is doomed to failure. Even if they win the necessary court cases and are legally allowed to proceed, it will be short term success at best.

First of all, the sheer wastefulness and inefficiency of purchasing, installing and managing separate antennae and tuners for each subscriber is a huge roadblock, especially when you start trying to expand outside of a single metro area.

Then there's the fact that eventually the networks are probably going to get their heads out of their @sses and will start making more of their shows/broadcasts available online, whether it be free, or via some network-blessed subscription service. When that happens, Bamboom will quickly disappear, having spent a ton of money on infrastructure and having made very little, if any, profit.

There are even more stupid things. Here in Taiwan, one of the largest IPTV provider (named MOD, provided by the largest telecom CHT) broadcast free-on-air TV on their IPTV, but some of the programs (on the free-to-air TV) are blocked because they don't have license. This is, of course, stupid, but the truth is that those TV stations want to sell the license to those popular programs to those IPTV provider later (as a VOD service, for example). However, cable TV system providers don't get blocked because they are basically protected by law, not unlike the situation in the US.

So you get basically two things which are almost the same (IPTV and cable), the only difference being the medium of transmission, while they get completely different treatment, because the law only protects "cable," not internet.

Seen the same in Norway, where the national broadcaster NRK had to forgo streaming one of their own shows because it contained something that they where not allowed to stream. This while at the same time they where perfectly allowed to broadcast it OTA...

Hell, a documentary about norwegian rap had to be taken down after a record company made a fuzz about a 5 second piece of background music from the same people that the documentary was covering. The people behind the documentary later put a edited version up without the background music, and a notice about the issue added.

The funny thing is, I'm old enough to remember CATV (Community Antenna TV) Back in the day, they built a large antenna tower at our seaside vacation community, and ran cables from it to the individual homes. You bought a "share" of the antenna. Since they didn't pick up anything that wasn't freely available from broadcast, and the subscribers "owned" the antenna, no one paid for licenses on anything.

Theoretically, this service should be the same - only difference is in what kind of wire the signal comes out of. In practice, however...

Cable tv may often work much the same way. Basically they set up a sat antenna with a special receiver that converts the sat channels into cable channels.

Cable tv may often work much the same way. Basically they set up a sat antenna with a special receiver that converts the sat channels into cable channels.

True, that - except SAT signals aren't commonly available, and in fact offered - unscrambled - to anyone who cares to put up an antenna. And there's no fiction that you "own" the cable companies satellite dish.

Hell, typing that out reminds me of a supposed exchange between Microsoft and Disney. Microsoft approached them trying to sell the use of their codec. Towards the end of the presentations of the codecs capabilities the MS representative turned to the Disney people and asked how much they would consider paying for the use of said codec. The Disney people responded by asking the Microsoft people how much Microsoft was willing to pay for the right to use Disney content.

To me that is one hell of and example of the level of hubris present in that "industry".

If I own something people want to buy, and a middleman is asking -me- for a cut of -my- business - just so they can ride on the coat-tails of my well-established brand - I am certainly going to respond with a counter-offer for a cut of -their- business - unless they offer some enhanced ability to reach my customers.

The exact same issue cropped-up between Ticketmaster and Microsoft, in 1997, and turned into a "deep links" lawsuit.

Miscrosoft was trying to recruit high-profile websites to be on Microsoft's "Sidewalk" web-portal, and they wanted Ticketmaster to pay for access to all the customers Microsoft claimed would flock to Sidewalk.

Ticketmaster saw no need to pay Microsoft to attract customers - having an established brand, an existing web-site which was selling ads, and a virtual monopoly on event ticket-sales - so they wanted Microsoft to pay them for bringing customers/eyeballs to Sidewalk.

Microsoft told them to stuff it, and started deep-linking to Ticketmaster's online ticket windows - bypassing all of Ticketmaster's ads....

Cable tv may often work much the same way. Basically they set up a sat antenna with a special receiver that converts the sat channels into cable channels.

True, that - except SAT signals aren't commonly available, and in fact offered - unscrambled - to anyone who cares to put up an antenna. And there's no fiction that you "own" the cable companies satellite dish.

I have read about a couple of local communities that have pulled together to fund such systems because the OTA reception was downright poor back in the day. That is, fund the building of their own version of the sat/cable conversion setup. And while i do not know about US, German OTA broadcasters also transmit their stuff via unscrambled sat.

That is, fund the building of their own version of the sat/cable conversion setup. And while i do not know about US, German OTA broadcasters also transmit their stuff via unscrambled sat.

I thought that had all died-out in the USA, with the double-whammy of encrypted sat comms, and the advent of DBS systems like Dish Network and DirectTV.

Legal rulings in the US = just because the signal was "passing through" your property - like a "transmission line" - didn't mean you had the right to tap-into the signal any more than you could tap-into a physical cable = just about everything became encrypted to protect the revenue-stream of re-broadcasting rights via cable/dsl/FiOS.

A friend bought one of those big-dish antennas - just as the encryption-wave started rolling-out - and was pissed to see everything worth watching become encrypted.

Too many stories of trailer-parks & apartment complexes setting-up one dish and providing access - free or otherwise - to all the residents, I guess.

"Why should consumers have to rely on unreliable home antenna systems ..."

Jesus, what a load of horse shit. The company's entire premise is faulty.

People, get off of your ASS and put together a working antenna system. Lazy fucks, willing to toss out quality and low cost for "convenience" and more complexity. Why swap out one subscription for another---is that really a solution? Your grandparents have more geek cred in this regard.

Gotta hand it to this guy for getting such a project funded by going around talking about his Lightbulbs of Genius. He must really have a knack for convincing people with loose checkbooks that he's the first person to think of watching TV over the Internet.

"Why should consumers have to rely on unreliable home antenna systems ..."

Jesus, what a load of horse shit. The company's entire premise is faulty.

People, get off of your ASS and put together a working antenna system. Lazy fucks, willing to toss out quality and low cost for "convenience" and more complexity. Why swap out one subscription for another---is that really a solution? Your grandparents have more geek cred in this regard.

The best TV antenna in the world still won't let me pick up New Orleans broadcasts in Philly. On a more serious note, if you live in an area with a lot of mountains and a decent amount of distance from your nearest boradcasters you aren't going to have that great of a picture. Toss in HOAs that might not allow you to set up an appropraitely sized antenna due to aesthetic reasons, and you have yourself a market for this type of service.

I would not pay for this service. All it is relocate you antenna. They are making it more complicated than it needs to be and see no point in it. Their efforts are better put to making a better OTA DVR device for the home with that teeny antenna. I could see myself buying such a device.

... On a more serious note, if you live in an area with a lot of mountains and a decent amount of distance from your nearest boradcasters you aren't going to have that great of a picture. Toss in HOAs that might not allow you to set up an appropraitely sized antenna due to aesthetic reasons, and you have yourself a market for this type of service.

Skyscrapers too. Kind of hard to go outside of your 30 story building to mount an antenna. Especially if there is a 40 story building blocking all the signals.

BTW, in the US, and HOA is prevented from blocking the installation of an antenna required for access of OTA broadcast. They may not like it, but that's the case.

The rule (47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000) has been in effect since October 1996, and it prohibits restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of antennas used to receive video programming. The rule applies to video antennas including direct-to-home satellite dishes that are less than one meter (39.37") in diameter (or of any size in Alaska), TV antennas, and wireless cable antennas. The rule prohibits most restrictions that: (1) unreasonably delay or prevent installation, maintenance or use; (2) unreasonably increase the cost of installation, maintenance or use; or (3) preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal.

Effective January 22, 1999, the Commission amended the rule so that it also applies to rental property where the renter has an exclusive use area, such as a balcony or patio.

On October 25, 2000, the Commission further amended the rule so that it applies to customer-end antennas that receive and transmit fixed wireless signals. This amendment became effective on May 25, 2001."

"Why should consumers have to rely on unreliable home antenna systems ..."

Jesus, what a load of horse shit. The company's entire premise is faulty.

People, get off of your ASS and put together a working antenna system. Lazy fucks, willing to toss out quality and low cost for "convenience" and more complexity. Why swap out one subscription for another---is that really a solution? Your grandparents have more geek cred in this regard.

The best TV antenna in the world still won't let me pick up New Orleans broadcasts in Philly. On a more serious note, if you live in an area with a lot of mountains and a decent amount of distance from your nearest boradcasters you aren't going to have that great of a picture. Toss in HOAs that might not allow you to set up an appropraitely sized antenna due to aesthetic reasons, and you have yourself a market for this type of service.

In my experience, most people who for whatever reason think they're not candidates for using an antenna are mistaken. Given the strong advantages, the point is to TRY before declaring defeat.

The examples you cite are often conquerable. Especially with HOAs, who actually have no legal authority to restrict any antenna that's not (I think) 60ft. up in the air. The top Google hit for "hoa fcc" outlines permissible restrictions: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

Ideally, any legitimate restriction (such as not allowing personal antennas on an apartment roof) would be met by having a landlord cognizant of the idea of using one or more antennas they own up there that can feed the whole building. It would essentially be a utility they maintain like the plumbing pipes. And that's certainly been done in the past. Unfortunately what you get today is landlords making deals with the cable company to wire the building and provide service, sometimes compulsory. So it's a mindset.

... On a more serious note, if you live in an area with a lot of mountains and a decent amount of distance from your nearest boradcasters you aren't going to have that great of a picture. Toss in HOAs that might not allow you to set up an appropraitely sized antenna due to aesthetic reasons, and you have yourself a market for this type of service.

Skyscrapers too. Kind of hard to go outside of your 30 story building to mount an antenna. Especially if there is a 40 story building blocking all the signals....

Yes, sorta true. Things are not always what they seem. Taking your example, such a consumer likely lives quite near the TV towers, unlike someone out in the suburbs, and so wouldn't need a large antenna. These signals can and will refract around buildings, and so long as multipath isn't an issue, the person might get a clean signal with a small antenna located on their personal balcony---which again, can't be restricted.

We've all seen plenty of balconies with a small dish attached to the railing; a TV antenna could be less conspicuous.

... On a more serious note, if you live in an area with a lot of mountains and a decent amount of distance from your nearest boradcasters you aren't going to have that great of a picture. Toss in HOAs that might not allow you to set up an appropraitely sized antenna due to aesthetic reasons, and you have yourself a market for this type of service.

Skyscrapers too. Kind of hard to go outside of your 30 story building to mount an antenna. Especially if there is a 40 story building blocking all the signals.

BTW, in the US, and HOA is prevented from blocking the installation of an antenna required for access of OTA broadcast. They may not like it, but that's the case.

The rule (47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000) has been in effect since October 1996, and it prohibits restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of antennas used to receive video programming. The rule applies to video antennas including direct-to-home satellite dishes that are less than one meter (39.37") in diameter (or of any size in Alaska), TV antennas, and wireless cable antennas. The rule prohibits most restrictions that: (1) unreasonably delay or prevent installation, maintenance or use; (2) unreasonably increase the cost of installation, maintenance or use; or (3) preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal.

Effective January 22, 1999, the Commission amended the rule so that it also applies to rental property where the renter has an exclusive use area, such as a balcony or patio.

On October 25, 2000, the Commission further amended the rule so that it applies to customer-end antennas that receive and transmit fixed wireless signals. This amendment became effective on May 25, 2001."

Nice to know. But I think I need to let my current HOA pissing match clear up before starting the next one.

"Why should consumers have to rely on unreliable home antenna systems ..."

Jesus, what a load of horse shit. The company's entire premise is faulty.

People, get off of your ASS and put together a working antenna system. Lazy fucks, willing to toss out quality and low cost for "convenience" and more complexity. Why swap out one subscription for another---is that really a solution? Your grandparents have more geek cred in this regard.

I my area, Fox is considered local because Fox paid for broadcasting rights in my area. This means I can't view Fox via DirectTV/etc because DirectTV can't show local channels. Yet, in the past 25 years, no one that I know can receive Fox at all because Fox doesn't actually broadcast here, they only registered to broadcast here. I get all my other local channels in crystal clear any where in a 50mil radius.

I have a friend with an old large 12' satellite dish. If the ionosphere is at the correct altitude and he points his dish in the correct direction, we can get a really weak signal from Fox. BTW, I live in the middle of my city.

I'd encourage people to give up broadcast/cable until the networks get things straightened out. You can get just about every show on DVD later. A fringe benefit is that you no longer see any ads.

Absolutely right. Want a-la-carte programming? Wait for the DVD.

These days, the only reason to put a show on the air is to promote the DVD/Bluray box set.

I can't fathom paying for cable or satellite at this point. Why pay my own money for the right to watch advertising?

For that matter, why pay this guy to stream my own local channels to me?

Exactly this. I've never paid for cable, ever (I get basic for free right now as a promotion -- The very few times I've used it, I find the sheer number of ads infuriating). If I want to watch something, I'll watch it on Netflix. If it's not on Netflix or Hulu, then I really don't need to watch it -- I have other things to do besides watch TV.